Answer: Precisely because the largest number of migrants fled from systems that were not democratic.
Explanation:
The largest number of migrants throughout history and even today decide to leave their home country due to poor conditions. These countries are mostly ruled by corruption, and the interests of people from the ruling structures are put at the forefront. Many countries in the Middle East are violating basic human freedoms, so many people from that part of the world are trying to reach Western Europe, and to a lesser extent, the United States. Migrants leave because of the impossibility of finding a job and the violation of basic human rights guaranteed to them in democratic systems.
After 1660 in England<span>, when women first started to appear on stage, the terms </span>actor<span> or </span>actress<span> were initially used interchangeably for female performers, but later, influenced by the French </span>actrice<span>, </span>actress<span> became the commonly used term for women in theatre and film. The etymology is a simple derivation from </span>actor<span> with "-</span>ess"<span> added.</span><span> However, when referring to more than one performer, of both sexes, </span>actor<span> is preferred as a gender-specific term for male performers. </span>Actor<span> is also used before the full name of a performer as a gender-specific term.
Hope this is of help to you, and happy studying~!
~{Dunsforhands}</span>
Plessy was a citizen who claimed to be seventh eights Caucasian and only one eighth Black. He was imprisoned and trial in a criminal court after an incident that took place while in New Orleans, in 1896, when he tried to board a car designated for hite people. He was denied a seat in the car for white people and urged to take a seat in the car for black people. As Plessy refused on the basis of his predominantly Caucasian race, the train staff arrested him, and then he was put in the parish jail. He was charged with criminal counts, but Plessy requested his case to be presented to the Supreme Court for he deemed there had been violations of the Thirteen and Fourteenth Amendments (abolition of slavery and equal treatment).
The Supreme Court's opinion stated that the treatment based on "equal but separated" did not conflict with the Thirteenth Amendment, for this amendment only protected citizens from being enslaved or forced to involuntary servitude, and no conflict was found with the Fourteenth Amendment since it enforced equality, but it did not specify under which terms. Therefore, the decision of the Supreme Court supported the doctrine "equal but separate" and segregation as well.
Yes because it is true ………
